The Arsenal of Mummer's The Word

Lately, I've been doing a series of interviews with new and established authors, and frequently, I've brought up the topic of research.

In previous entries, I'd mentioned that research is integral to believable historical fiction.  But I've never shown some of the research I have done.

Quick snapshot to get you caught up:  the protagonist of Mummer's the Word, John Stillman, had been a private investigator from a very young age.  In 1940, he enlisted as a paratrooper.  In 1942, he was gravely wounded in battle, and was shipped back home with full honours, having achieved the rank of sergeant.  He didn't sign up for another tour of duty, but instead went back to work as a private investigator.  Later that same year, he spotted his senior partner and mentor Eben Magrew being escorted by a plainclothes gunman  into a military truck in the middle of the night.  Thinking his boss was being abducted, he followed the truck for more than two hours, until it stopped at the gates of Camp X.  Discovering that Magrew was now being trained as a secret operative, Stillman insisted on joining up, even proving his worth by taking covert surveillance photographs of the Camp itself.  He was arrested, threatened, and then accepted into the SOE.  He was codenamed "Mummer" and was deployed on several missions in Belgium, working with the Belgian Secret Army.  In early 1943, he was caught by collaborators and Nazi soldiers, taken to a POW camp, and there had his tongue surgically removed for failing to cooperate with interrogators.  When the camp was liberated by Allied Forces a few weeks later, Stillman was returned to Canada, and all knowledge of his missions and capture strictly disavowed.  As we see in Mummer's the Word, though, Stillman returns once more to his old job as a private investigator, with or without a tongue, and he continues to put SOE training to good (or bad) use.

So, bearing in mind his age, military background, budget, location and time period, I had to find a couple of weapons that a) were in use at the time, b) that he would have access to, and c) would look good on the big screen. Below are just some of the weapons I've researched in the writing and editing of the Mummer series.

*Special note:  I do not own firearms.  If I did, they would be used strictly for target practice, and they would be kept very secure with trigger locks and stored in a gun locker.  I don't believe in owning one for my own personal defense, myself, because any weapon you have can be used against you.  Besides, by the time I had the gun safe and the trigger lock open, I suspect the damage would already have been done.

And there's always the fear of something going wrong.  Mishandling is one thing.  If I ever do own a firearm, I'm going to know everything there is to know about it, including maintenance, safe handling and safe storage.  I'm not afraid of handling weapons - in a safe and regulated environment. But I am terrified of missing or having a ricochet cause serious damage to an innocent victim - or worse, killing them.

Consider this:  if you live in an apartment building, and if can hear your neighbours talking, how likely is it that a bullet will be stopped by the walls?  Unless you're inside a bank vault, your interior walls are pretty easy to penetrate.  And if you do shoot inside a bank vault, you've got another problem to contend with:  ricochet from multiple angles.

Consider this too:  when you watch cop shows or movies, you hear about entry and exit wounds, right?  Exit wounds = bullet did its job, exited the premises, then went to find someone else to hit.

Weapons have their place, and in some circumstances, it would make sense that people go around armed.  Cops, for example.  Secret agents for another.  But there are a great deal of things that can go wrong with firearms (I make use of that in my stories), and you can avoid gun battles altogether through a wide range of tactics - observation, covert tactics, hand-to-hand combat, bluffing, diversion...And those are the things that really whet my imagination.

My interest in weapons is strictly intellectual.  I like weapons the way I like big expensive houses:  I love their design and functionality from an aesthetic point of view, but I wouldn't want one of my own.  I'd be even more afraid of criminal activity.

That said, here is some of the research I've done in seeking weapons for the major characters in the Mummer series.

__________

Concealed Weapons

In the very first chapter of the first book, Mummer's the Word, Stillman mentions his thumb knife.  He typically keeps this weapon close at hand, near his watchband, under his cuff.

Other variants of the concealed knife are the boot knife (he had one, but he hated it), the lapel knife, the sleeve dagger, and the crotch knife (ouch!).

Another old favourite is the garotte.  I'd post a picture, but they're just nasty.  Simply put, it's a wire, chain, rope, fishing line - basically any strong filament - used to strangle one's victims from behind.  Because the force required against the wire is enough to seriously weaken your fingers, the two ends are usually fixed to rings, large beads, small knobs of wood, etc.

I won't specify what kind of garotte Mummer uses, but suffice it to say, until today, I thought I'd invented it.  Ha!  Boy, it's amazing what you find when you search the internet.

For a more detailed picture of a lot of concealed weapons I may or may not use in future (in the narrative, I mean), check out this ridiculously awesome website.  This site features some of the concealed weapons used by agents in the British SOE (Special Operations Executive, disbanded and later partially reabsorbed into MI6) and the American OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the CIA).

__________

Handguns

Since 1997, I've been shooting a wide range (pardon the pun) of handguns and other firearms.  My instructor is Stuart Seki, who is now a warrant officer with the Canadian Armed Forces.  So, a very special thank you goes out to him.  A second thank you goes to Kim Hynes, who taught me things only a lady shooter can teach you, like "Before you fire a shotgun, make sure you move your bra strap, or it's going to leave a bruise."

This Enfield No.2 MK 1* variant sold in an online auction for about $200 in 2006

Mummer's original firearm was an Enfield No. 2 MK 1* (pictured above), which used .38 ammunition.  I had originally thought to use this in the narrative because a) it was in period, b) it satisfied locus in quo (i.e., it's of British and/or Canadian manufacture, and not, say, German or Russian), and C) it had no hammer spur.  Having no hammer sticking up meant it wouldn't get caught on clothing as it was drawn from a concealed holster.  It also meant that it was double-action only.  You know when good guys and bad guys make their threats clear by cocking back the hammer?  That's single-action.  Double-action means you go straight from draw to shooting.  I'd also chosen a double-action only type handgun, because that's kind of Mummer's style.  He can't come out and say, "Hey, if you don't behave, I'm gonna punch you".  He'll punch you first, and if you repeat your behaviour, he'll just punch you again.

But, I didn't like that pistol, for practical reasons.  Double-action requires a lot more force to pull the trigger, so, unless you're an expert, the action of squeezing your hand tends to throw off your aim.  So I gave him a Webley instead.

Webley Mark VI Service Revolver

Now here, we have another .38, with single- and double-action.  The Webley Mark VI Revolver is actually a bit of an older model (production stopped in 1923) - which also works well.  When he's first starting out, Stillman is more likely to own a hand-me-down; at the very least, he's not likely going to go out and get the most advanced firearm on the market, 'cause he can't fricking afford to upgrade every time a new pistol hits the market.  So to speak.  Besides that, this firearm has a certain Indiana Jones charm to it, doesn't it?

But of course, he is going to upgrade eventually, so...

Browning Hi-Power

Now, we can have some fun.  The Browning Hi-Power is a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, with a magazine capable of holding 13 rounds (bullets).  It's in period, in setting and in character (manufactured by Inglis in Canada in '44 and '45 for military use), it's concealed as readily as the revolvers above, and it's a common enough handgun for the time.  It has some features that I intend on exploiting in The Man with the Silver Tongue, the second in the Mummer series.

If I remember correctly, this is one of the handguns with which I've had the pleasure of missing the broad side of a barn.  It doesn't have a balance I like, which is a fancy way of saying "I have all the grip strength of a sickly infant."  If I take more than a couple of seconds to aim and fire, the barrel tips toward the imaginary crotch of the target stand, and then I over-correct and shoot over his right shoulder.  The guns I am better at using are out of period and out of place.

__________

Larger Firearms

I have to mention here that it's probably because of W/O Seki that I get a case of the giggles when handling larger firearms, be it a rifle or pump action shot gun.  Maybe it's because I suck at small arms.  I can't get a solid grip on a pistol because I have the hands of an Aye Aye:  all finger and no palm.

Aye Aye straining to see the target downrange.

Why I'm a better at typing than at marksmanship.

But, put me behind a scope and a nice bipod, and I laugh maniacally.

During my brief time with the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves (Infantry), I became well acquainted with the ins and outs of the C7 rifle and C9A1 light machine gun, with their cleaning and handling, their loading and unloading, their scope and sights, firing, all that neat stuff.  But if there was any small arms training, I seem to have missed out.

Not me.  And that's a C7A2.  But you get the idea.  Ah, the good old days.

So naturally, I had to put some kind of rifle and/or shotgun into the story.  But again, I had to satisfy time, place and character.

Bren Light Machine Gun, carried by a Canadian soldier in WWII.  I love you, Wikipedia.

I've handled a Bren Mark II (deactivated), thanks once again to Stuart Seki.  It comes with a harness as well, for easier carrying (I probably wouldn't carry it like the guy in this photo), but dang that thing is heavy.  I could probably fire it from the prone position (lying down), but this is not a weapon to be fired from the hip by anyone but a large, angry person.

Bren Mk 2 magazine-fed

Bren Mk 2 belt-fed, with aftermarket modification

Nico San Nicola, one of the supporting characters, is over six feet tall, weighing well over 250 pounds.  He could handle this weapon easily enough.  But the problem was, unlike the soldier in the above picture, Nico is missing his right hand and forearm.  So, between Stuart, his collector friend and I, we designed an imaginary modified three point harness.  Then Stuart and his friend each stood with the rifle in this modified position to see if it was feasible to manipulate the weapon single handedly or not.  And yes, it was feasible.  Awkward as all get out, but feasible.  Hooray for weapons technicians, re-enactors and first person research!

So heavy you need to breathe fire before you're able to lift it.

Also, checking out YouTube for "firing Bren gun" led me to a couple of clips where you can watch a demonstration of its action.

If you're going to do any research on weapons, I strongly recommend watching these types of videos, especially if you're not as lucky (or as comfortable) with learning their handling and action first hand.



Pay special attention to when they're being fired.  Watch body posture.  Watch arm flexion.  Watch how grown men have trouble firing and walking - and aiming - all at the same time.  Try not to watch anything that has professional actors in it.  Trust me on this:  you'll know you've done your research when you can't watch TV or films without flinging your popcorn at the screen.

__________

Photos courtesy of theBrigade.theChive.com

The Sten submachine gun.  I chose it because it was the weapon of choice for many resistance movements (i.e. the Belgian Secret Army), because it was used by Canadian troops, because of the robust nature of its configuration (compare the two pictures above - both are Sten guns, different variants), because of its cost efficiency for manufacture, and because the thing was...well...unpreditable.

Manufactured in Canada by women who didn't know if they should be proud of them or not.

Not only is this gun in period, but it was first used during the Dieppe Raid, arguably one of Canada's most famous (notorious) battles during WWII.

And it goes bang.  I recommend the video below not only because you get to see the weapon itself, but also because you get a glimpse into firing range protocol.  But I certainly didn't recommend it for that horrid music.



For loads of stories about the history, manufacture and use of this gun, check out this website.  For pictures of its variants (and usage in modern culture), check this one.

__________

This is just a sampling of the weapons used in the series.  And this is only a glimpse of the research I've done on these weapons - the weapons listed here are only the ones that made the cut, not all the weapons I've researched.  And I've only scratched the surface, in terms of research I should be doing.

That doesn't mean I have to be an expert.  The only firearms I can identify on sight are Lugers, Sten guns, and maybe the CZ 75.  I don't have to be an expert for a lot of reasons:  1) photo archives, 2) enthusiast websites, 3) YouTube, 4) I know experts and/or where to find them.  Once the book is written, edited and put to bed, I can promptly forget all the details (and usually do), because I have notes to reference back to, if put on the spot.

However, I do need to be familiar with these weapons as I write and edit.  I need to know their calibre and ammunition, their range, their firing action and rate of fire, manufacture and availability, and best of all, their foibles and breakpoints.  (I take advantage of the foibles in both the first and second books, and probably will in future stories as well.)  I need to know how they're loaded, how they're handled, how they're stored, who else might have used them - everything.

I don't have to put all that information into the narrative, mind you.  Gracious - I've read some stories where people have actually laid out all the specifications of a weapon, instead of taking advantage of those specs.  Boring!  In fact, the fewer specifics I put into the story, the less likely I'll be called out by someone who knows better.  But I still need to know what I'm talking about. 

And I don't have to know the make and model of every gun in the show.  If there's somebody pointing a gun at me, I'm probably not going to gasp and say, "Why look!  It's a Browning M1911 semi-automatic pistol, .45 calibre, with post-manufacture modification to the front and rear sights, and with a standard 7-round box magazine!"  I'm more likely to say "Yikes!  He's pointing a gun at me!" and then run for cover.

In fact, if I can avoid it, I'll more likely avoid gun battles altogether, especially if one of the participants is a cop.  Every bullet needs to be accounted for, and that requires a lot of paper work (for the characters and for me).  Add to that the cost of the gun and ammunition, especially if you're as strapped for cash as Mummer is.

Besides that, I'm far more interested in a character who knows how to get out of a gun battle without looking like a coward.  After all, anybody can write a shoot out.  But how much more intriguing would it be to read or write about a guy who thinks his way out of trouble - when he has no tongue!

Final bit of advice:  always find a good, honest and strict gun range controller.  Always listen to your instructor - not only to their stories and instructions, but to the rules they lay out as well.  You'll have more fun shooting in safety than you would if there were a bunch of snorting goof-offs waving pistols up range and around the gallery.

But, for the love of good literature:  don't write about guns until you've done and confirmed your research.

Historical fiction: Brain food!

Okay, so, my budding historical fiction author, here's the tally.

You've got an infinite amount of research to do.  You've got an equal amount of editing to do.  You need to find first readers, subject matter experts, multiple sources for your research, and adequate time for eating and sleeping.  You've got to embed small but relevant details into your story without making them stand out from the manuscript as sign posts declaring "Proof I did my research!"

Then, you have to prepare yourself for the inevitable and vitriolic critics - those who know what they're talking about, and those who don't.

And on top of all that, you've got to find / create an intriguing, new and unique story line!  With lifelike characters, and with good pacing and suspense and...and good grammar!  And spelling!

Writing a story is hard enough when you're setting it in modern times!  Why add the extra layer of complexity by throwing us back into a time that may predate the author's own life?  What's the draw?

1)  Escapism.  If I'm reading a book, it's because I don't want to be on Facebook or watching the news or responding to email.  I want to get away from today.  Reading historical fiction not only takes me out of my life, but it takes me out of my world.  There's something charming about putting down your blackberry and picking up a book about a monk in his peaceful monastery garden, solving murder mysteries with plants and poisons...

2)  Perspective.  Depending on the story, it also helps to remind me that yeah, times may have been simpler back then, but they were a whole lot harder.  I would not be able to survive September (such as it's been) if I also had to deal with a coffee and sugar ration.

3)  Challenge.  In the first post of this mini-series, I'd compared historical fiction to writing with one arm tied behind your chair and your tongue tied behind your head.  But the "wows" are worth it.  If you're lucky enough to hand your book to someone who lived in that era and see them nod and remember aloud what you're describing, then every awful minute of research and editing has been worth it.  And besides, when later you write something set in the present, it's like taking off your handicap weights and soaring!  Imagine writing about stuff you don't have to research so thoroughly!

4)  Fascination.  Enough said.  Readers and writers of historical fiction have an existing fascination with a certain epoch because that era, simply said, is intriguing and exciting. And sometimes it's funny!



5)  Specialization and niche carving.  Few people write about Canada in World War II - not Canada's participation in the war overseas, but about Canada itself during the '40s - the people who were left behind.  There are truckloads of people who write about it, yes, but fewer than people who write about...say...vampires in 20th/21st century USA.  The field of competition is smaller (though just as fierce).  And name me one other person who writes about women butchers and murders among nuns in 16th century England.

To be honest, this can also work for and against you.  Specialized writers can mean specialized (read, small) audiences.  Large publishing houses want mass appeal because they survive on mass sales; smaller publishing houses are sometimes more willing to take a chance.  Be patient, and make your work so appealing even the stuffiest of editors wants to buy it.

6)  Continuing education.  Writing about somebody else in some other time and place is an intellectual exercise that involves as much learning as writing.  I have to research the time and place.  I have to research flora, fauna, geography, political allegiances, food and drink, fashion, courtship rituals and religion - I have to become a total anthropologist.  And thanks to your local public library (and the internet), you can save yourself tuition fees!

The mental exercise of seeking, assimilating, manipulating and remembering new information seems to help stave off mental health problems later in life, like dementia, or even Alzheimers.

7)  Certain historical periods resonate with personal history.  I grew up in a somewhat disadvantaged household; I never went hungry or without a roof over my head, but I couldn't go out on most field trips, or wear fashionable clothes, or play with all the fancy toys everybody else had.  From a very early age, I understood that painstakingly careful money management makes the difference between food and no food.

I looked at the Haves and Have Nots from the same perspective as someone who grew up during the Great Depression.

And then I joined the Army and learned about war.

My experience mirrors what may have been experienced during those decades, and some of the common ethics of those days (work ethic, sense of honour and decorum, faith) echo what I believe today.

Later, I discovered the fashion and style of the '30s and '40s - and liked it.  Later still, I discovered radio plays - and loved them!  In the late 2000s, I discovered swing (music and dance) - now I'm taking classes and playing Gene Krupa tracks day and night.

Discovering all the bad things that happened during the '30s and '40s (discrimination, Allied internment camps, sexism, recession and unemployment) only increased my fascination with that era.

It only made sense that I would write about those two decades.

But why I write about a female butcher in 16th century England however...not sure.  Even more of a challenge, I guess.  Maybe it's because Lady Butcher reminds me of Rosie the Riveter.

8)  History is fixed, more or less.  Unlike cell phone technology.

All technology has a life cycle:
A) new, extremely cool and prohibitively expensive,
B) cool and accessible to the military,
C) marketable to business and the consumer,
D) outdated, E) gauche!
F) retro, G) antique,
H), old, extremely cool and prohibitively expensive.

Think of iPad technology.  When you conceived your story, the iPad may still have been so new it was almost mythical.  By the time you finished writing your story, you could spend less than an hour in the Apple store to buy one.  By the time the story is edited and put to press, the iPad 2 is already cooling on the market.  By the time your book is published, Apple will have created something utterly unlike the iPad.

Almost ten years ago, I sat in a training class for work.  We were asked to design the awesomest cell phone possible.  My colleagues and I came up with a phone that could act as a fax, news source, bank machine, barcode scanner and bottle opener; you could even check the stock in your fridge while sitting on the train, and order groceries to be delivered in time for you to arrive at home.  Now, all I can say is, "There's an app for that."

Walk with me through 12 years of Blackberry history to get an idea of how quickly modern technology in your story will be outmoded (and kinda laughed at).

1999.  Blackberry 2-way Pager.  Aww...so cute...

2000.  Blackberry 957 PDA (Do you even remember what PDA stands for?).  You can check your emails on it.  Sometimes.  So long as it has no attachments.

2003.  Blackberry 6750.  Now with telephony! 

2007.  Blackberry 8100 "Pearl".  Bluetooth technology, and a 2 MP camera.

2010.  Blackberry Playbook.  Multi media, high speed internet access across cell towers, front and rear 3.2 MP cameras, and video fricking conferencing.  Currently does not walk the dog or fold laundry.  No wonder the iPad is selling better!

Darn it, I can't keep up with the Joneses anymore.  Let them run on ahead for a while.  

We live in the science fiction age; it used to be you could make up any technology (interplanetary travel, atomic fusion, energy pulse weapons...invisibility cloaks...the iPad) and know that it didn't exist.  Now, you actually have to research whether or not your idea has already been implemented in today's scientific research and development!  And anything that is new and modern today is outmoded and laughed at two years from now.  When was the last time a flip phone was cool?

I know that my 1935 Underwood Portable typewriter is already retro - almost antique - so I don't have to worry about my technology going out of style.

9)  Because it's what I do.  I've dabbled in fantasy, science fiction, gothic, horror, contemporary crime fiction, stage plays...poetry...everything but westerns and romance.  But this year, during the Muskoka Novel Marathon 2011, I won not only the Most Prolific Award (third year in a row!), but I was humbled to receive the award for Best Novel in the Adult category.  I'd managed to write a murder mystery set in a time period I'd known nothing about prior to this summer, and I'd done it well.  I'm officially hooked on historical crime fiction, because to date, it's what I've done best.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go finish two books as quickly as possible and send them out - Mummer's the Word (set in 1944) and Lady Butcher and the Accidental Saint (set in 1538).

Kindly pass the tape.

At the Crossroads of History and Fiction

In the previous post, I mention that a very wonderful First Reader named Marlene attacked Mummer's the Word with a bright red pen.  If memory serves correctly, a highlighter, pencil and blue pen were also used, so I got the works!  I still owe her a fine, fancy dinner out when this thing gets published.

But the experience taught me, not just facts, but the skills I need to make a good story in historical fiction.

Am I an expert?  If by "expert" you mean "am I published?", then no.  What I detail below is what I've learned over the past four years, and some of it is educated guessing; but if it works for you, too, then fantastic.

1)  Question Everything

Take for example a hiccup I came across in editing a couple of nights ago.  Mummer says "And now for the Sixty-Four Dollar Question."  I thought myself rather clever, remembering that before the 64,000 Dollar Question, radio stations were modest in their prizes.  Then I went back and checked the broadcast dates of The Sixty-Four Dollar Question.  It aired 1950 - 1952.  My story is set in 1944.  The Sixty-Four Dollar Question is still six years OOP (out-of-period).

So then I got clever and decided to change it to "And now for the skill-testing question..."

I stopped and double-checked again, and boy did I learn some interesting things.

First, I thought skill-testing questions were a normal part of all lotteries and contests, around the world.  Wrong!  It's a Canadian thing. I did not know that.  Secondly, it's still OOP - even worse than the Sixty-Four Dollar Question.  Skill-testing questions are baked right into the Criminal Code of Canada (I didn't know that either), but - and this took some digging to find out - this was after provincial lotteries became legal in 1969.  Definitely OOP.

So, for now I'm stuck with "And now for the real question..."  Yawn.  But historically accurate.

2)  Little Details Make or Break Your Credibility

I'd mentioned in the last post that a police detective had on his person a ballpoint pen - and I had even done my research to see whether or not a ballpoint pen was mass manufactured in 1944.

It may have been inconsequential to me, but Marlene picked up on it, though she was actually reading to check the details about Camp X.  The appearance of a ballpoint pen itched her enough to mention it to me.

The scene is not about the invention of the ballpoint pen.  The scene is about a conversation between a police detective and a man who has lost the power of speech; the pen was meant to be a kind of go-between, a translator - an inconsequential detail.  But it was enough to pull a reader out of the story, and it casts doubt on the accuracy of the rest of my historical detail.  The illusion of time-travel was lost.

And remember - the strangers who read your book are going to be picking it off the shelves because they have an existing interest in history and the time period you're writing about.  Chances are, they're stacking you up against other historical fiction authors, and they have a lot of background knowledge about the period.  They'll be looking to your work for two things:  to build on their knowledge base, and to enjoy a good story.  If they wanted nothing but historical facts, they'd have bought a non-fiction book; so be entertaining without writing a history text book.  If the reader learns something new, and if you are credible, and if you write a good story, they'll buy more books and tell others to buy your book too.

3)  Etymology is your friend.  So are multiple sources.

In the last post, I'd referred to a police officer as a "flatfoot".  I'd done that very deliberately, for a couple of reasons.

First, it would have been in my character's vocabulary, and I know it, because it's said in a number of Old Time Radio plays that I have in my collection.  If it's in a radio play, it's fair game (so long as it predates the time-frame of your story, of course).  We quote movies in our every day speech.  "Go ahead punk.  Make my day", "I'll be back," "You had me at hello" and "Never fight a land war in Asia" all stick out in my head as modern examples.  So what's to stop someone from quoting the radio?

Secondly, the term "flatfoot" is a very subtle but keen insult, given the context.  If you do your research, you'll be surprised to find out why.

One site says cops are called "flatfoots" (ouch - awkward grammatical construction, that) because beat cops used to walk long patrol routes, which presumably gave rise to fallen arches - flat feet.

But another site states the historical reason why I actually chose the insult.  Men with flat feet were disqualified from military service during World War II, but not from serving on a police force.  So, for my ex-paratrooper main character to call someone a flatfoot is to point out that the civilian police officer wasn't fit enough (read "man enough") for army duty - or for any kind of conflict for that matter, when pitched against a man who has seen action overseas.

Key lesson here:  if you stick with only website, you're only ever going to get one answer, and you'll be missing the bigger picture.  Worse:  you could be getting the wrong answer altogether.

Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all of information; neither is Ask.com.  These are user-contribution sites; any Joe or Jane can add bald-faced lies, so long as they have an editor's membership and no one checks their sources.

Instead, go read a site or a book written by an authority on the subject.  Check their references - the footnotes are there for a reason.  Better yet, always try to get at the primary sources.  (Click here for a definition of primary and secondary sources.)  Get your hands on artefacts (antiques and vintage posters, for example), images (photos, paintings, films from that time period), and original written documents (newspapers, letters, advertisements from that time period, etc.).  If you're really lucky, talk to people who've lived in that time and in that place.

My favourite contact with primary sources:  a guided tour of the actual site of Camp X.  After the Camp was completely decommissioned, somebody, in their infinite military wisdom, took a bulldozer and literally pushed the buildings and materiel off the cliff overlooking Lake Ontario.  Now, after a big storm, bits and pieces of history wash ashore:  bits of plates, the handle of a mug, pieces of brick, water-worn glass...I even walked around for two years with a lump of coal in my purse - something I had picked off the shore that day.

By the way, Lynn Phillip Hodgson, author of Inside Camp X, is giving another guided tour the weekend of September 24th, 2011.  Great for the kids.  SO GO SEE HIM, OR ELSE!

Try to avoid historical films - i.e. movies made now, set 60 years ago.  They're great inspiration, but you run the risk of carbon copying someone else's error.

4)  Info dumps are for Wikipedia. 


I could name a few very popular authors who'd like to give you the historical background of the modern light bulb before the hero can turn one on.  Did someone die during the invention of the modern light bulb, and does it have any bearing on the plot at hand?  No?  Great, get it out of the book.  If you don't, I swear, I'll put the book down (in the recycling bin) and never pick it up again.

Historical details need to be as subtle as the chairs in a restaurant scene.  Your characters need to interact with them (actual headlines from real newspapers revealed when a character sits down to read it, dropping coffee beans into a hand-cracked coffee grinder while listening to a baseball game on the radio, or asking someone to check their stocking seams and giggling about an upcoming movie date).  Unless the character has a really good reason for it, they shouldn't treat the prop as a novelty or with nostalgia.

And for goodness sake, limit your props to what is readily and easily available in that year - and nothing more!

There are two types of historical fiction authors I would joyfully string up by their earlobes.  One has a character that says "Gee, I wish I had (this thing that is readily available in 2011)!  Wouldn't that be handy right now?"  The other has a character that says "Boy, I'll sure miss this (thing that was only available until 1952) when it's gone!"  Characters are not clairvoyant!  If they are, I don't want to read your story!  It's a lot more fun when nobody knows what's going on (except for the writer), because that's more realistic, and more suspenseful!

If you need to explain the history of a prop in your story, it had bloody well better be related to the story at hand.  Seriously.  I have no attention span when it comes to gratuitous detail.

5)  History has history.


Historical fiction needs to be written as if no time has passed since the epoch in which this story was set.  1945 does not exist in Mummer's world.  The Atom Bomb doesn't exist.  Hitler will keep on fighting until the end of time, and he might even win.  That is Mummer's world.  We may know differently, but Mummer doesn't.  This affects his every decision, and it's true to life.


But when you're researching your time frame (i.e. 1944), bear in mind that a) your characters and b) your world has had history leading up to this time.

Characters are influenced by today (1944), but also by personal history (1918-1944, primary and secondary education, a job, girlfriends and ex-girlfriends, fights, accidents...taxes...).  They're also influenced by global history (the Second World War, the Depression, the Roaring 20s and the First World War).  Did his father serve in another War before him?  Can they swap war stories?  Was his mother a war bride?

Always bear in mind the character's age if you have to delve into backstory.  Mummer was between the ages of 2 and 12 during the '20s.  He's likely to remember his first bike, or his trading cards and slingshot, or the time his uncle fell off the couch in a drunken stupor, and less likely to remember world events.

History affects all characters, too, not just the primary.  In fact, your supporting characters may have had longer personal histories than your main character, and a wider global history, too.  One supporting character in Mummer's the Word is Spanish.  Did you know that between the First and Second World War there was a Civil War in Spain?  How does that affect a man's character, if he serves in World War I (1914-1918) and emigrates to Canada during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and launches right into World War II (1939-1945)?  That's a lot of war in one man's lifetime.  And he didn't even know about Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War or the Middle East!

Consider history in terms of ethnicity as well.  I had one character in Her Poison Voice that came from a country that didn't exist when he was born (Yugoslavia); and even though he emigrated when he was a babe in arms, because of his nationality, he was interned during World War I.  And that was in Canada!  Imagine how that affects his psyche during the Depression, when competition for jobs is at its fiercest, and discrimination was commonplace.

History affects different social strata differently but concurrently.  A farmer in the Dustbowl will see the '30s differently from a laid-off factory worker in the big city, who will see the Depression differently from the middle-class car dealer with a family of three daughters, who will see it differently from the spoiled rich bachelor with the diamond cuff links and the black bow tie.  Worse, each one of these characters is looking at each other through the lenses of their own troubled existence.

Fortunately, most books won't have a farmer, factory worker, car dealer and Dapper Dan in the same scene, which simplifies things for writer and reader.  But I suggest you keep a wide perspective on your time period in order to enrich the characters, the setting and the plot.

History is broader, longer and more complex than you think.  Write first, research thoroughly second, and edit like crazy.

But be careful:  you'll lose me with too much back story and too many overt cases of "Lookit me!  Here's proof I did my research!".  Balance, balance, balance - and more on this in a moment.

Also, when was the last time you thought, "Wow, I wish we had never interned the Japanese."  If you're involved in a murder, you've got other things on your mind.  Use hindsight with great caution.  You can frame hindsight in context however:  "Who are you to scream about internment camps in the Fatherland?  You interned the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians.  You confiscated their wealth and property, even when they were born in Canada.  And do I have to bring up Indian Reservations?"


6)  You can make some stuff up, but people are going to call your bluff.

There are very practical reasons why I chose to make up the municipality of Morgan City.

For one thing, it allows me to merge the Ontario-ish-ness of the towns I grew up in, with the architecture I love in Montreal.  I'm well acquainted with the historical significance of places like Ajax, Ontario, for example (a town which came about because of World War II).  I'm familiar with the flora, fauna, waterways and personality of the area.

Secondly, dang it, it was faster and easier to make up a chimerical town than have to purchase a zoning map of an actual city as it was in 1944 - and then to have to layer in the architecture, the position of the sun, the industrial buildings and the great timing chain of lunches and breaks and bank hours.

Thirdly, I didn't want to pick on one city or another, because someone's always going to know more than me about the history of any real place.  But nobody knows Morgan City, Ontario, as well as I do.  You can ask me the hills, valleys, park lands, creeks and ravines, empty lots, commercial zones and residential neighbourhoods; you can ask me where the meat processing plant is in relation to the Utilities Building; you can ask me when's the best time to get a burger, and where.  I could even tell you about the various schools and religious conflicts in the town.  I've "studied" Morgan City so well I swear I've shopped at the Farthing & Gage Department Store for my underwear and bubble gum.

Sometimes, making stuff up is just plain easier - if you do it well.

But then you get into some sticky business where you have to fuse fiction with reality.

Mummer was a Lance Corporal and later Sergeant with the 4th Paratroopers of Morgan City (a unit affectionately known as the "4 Paramours" - 4th Canadian PARAchute Batallion of MORgan City).

There are two problems with that.  For one, the real-life 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion was formed in 1942.  Mummer was already overseas with the 4th Paratroopers by then...so...what happened to the 2nd and 3rd Battalions, and how come the 4 Paramours were already overseas before the 1st Battalion was even formed?

I also mention in the story that Mummer had encountered the 48th Highlanders of Canada.  The 48th is an actual Highland (kilt-wearing) unit that served in WWII.  They also used to be known as the Dirty Four Dozen, The Glamour Boys - and as one Canadian veteran told me, "The Ladies from Hell."  And I'm partial to adding the 48th Highlanders into the story, because that was the unit I served with for two years in the Reserves.  Dileas!  (I was a terrible soldier, by the way, that's why I was only in for two years.)

So I have some trouble here:  by having fictional units and real units in the same story, you cast doubt on the real units, and whether they existed or not.  The flip side is, because the 48th Highlanders actually existed, I have to wonder how many people are going to try and Google "4 Paramours" to see if they were real or not.

Blending in Mummer's involvement with Camp X is, by comparison, simple to do.  Only an extremely small number of people knew who graduated from Camp X.  There is some dispute whether Ian Fleming (creator of James Bond) was one of the students there, but I have no reason to doubt it.  (I can't prove it one way or the other!)

But there's a simple explanation for why few know who went in or went out of Camp X:  they're called secret agents for a good reason.

So, until somebody tells me otherwise, we can all go on believing that some cutie like John "Mummer" Stillman could have been one of its graduates.

On top of that, I need to decide whether or not to fictionalize the actions of a person who actually existed.  I'm growing more and more uncomfortable with using this one personage in my story, though it would be a perfect tie-in between the real and the fictional.  I'm still on the fence, and even when I do make my final decision, I'll question it.  After all, what if it's public knowledge that this real life person was in Piccadilly Square at the time I have him in Morgan City?  What if the actions I'm putting him in are outside of his character, or his authority?  Can I make it up?

7)  My favourite historical fiction strikes a perfect balance.

If you're writing historical fiction, you are compelled to make some stuff up; but you also have to stick in some actual details, or else it's not historical fiction.  By definition, historical fiction is the weaving together of fact and fiction.

I have found a tendency toward laziness among some historical fiction authors (including those I've met but won't name, because I prefer stirring up trouble in person).  They carry an attitude of "Stop asking questions and just enjoy the story."  This kind of attitude allows a writer to shrug off glaring historical inaccuracies and call them "exercises in artistic license" or "fictionalization."  Blah!  Bad bad bad!  At least put some effort into it.

Draw a horizontal line, labeling one end "FACT" (coal ships sailed all over Lake Ontario) and the other end "FICTION" (Nazi-planted limpet mines blew up a coal ship in Morgan City Harbour).  Too far to the "Fiction" end, and you run the risk of being labeled "Alternate history" or even "fantasy".  Too far the other way, and I'll fall asleep.

Bisect that line with a vertical axis.  Put "HIGH DETAIL" at one end (sat in a scarlet brocade-upholstered genuine Louis XIV fauteuil smoking a meershaum pipe which had first been bought by a shady bookie in Ankara and sold for gas money in 1933).  At the other end, put "VAGUE DETAIL" (sat and smoked while reading the news).  Too vague, and I wonder why you don't just set the story in modern times; too much detail and I will tear whole paragraphs out of your book, marinate them overnight in brine and eat them.

But even I'm at risk of putting in too much.  I've done all but drawn a surveyor's map of Morgan County.  My challenge is not to describe everything in one book! Yes I know how one character lost an arm (where he was, what he was doing, what time of day it was, where he put the dynamite and why it blew up too soon); but how he lost his arm doesn't have any bearing on the trouble at hand (so to speak), so I have to leave it out for now.

In the intersection of those two lines, I think you'll find that perfect balance.  What historical fiction I've liked has fallen right in the middle of that diagram.  I want to read more historical crime fiction to see who I like best, but so far, it's Ellis Peters all the way (creator of Cadfael, among other characters).

So, given all these rules and pitfalls, why bother writing historical fiction at all?  Why read it?  In Part Three of this mini-series, I'll attempt to answer exactly those questions.

Stay tuned!

Historical Fiction and the Terrible O.O.P.S.

Writing historical fiction is like typing with one arm tied behind your chair and your tongue taped to the back of your head.  There are so many rules, so many blind spots!

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

My first serious taste of writing historical fiction was in the original draft of Mummer's the Word, which involved an ex-SOE agent (Special Operations Executive) in a Canadian city on the shores of the St. Lawrence Seaway, in the final 12 months of the second World War.  It was the same year I discovered Wikipedia, and I was very proud of myself, having done research during and after the creation of the book.

I'd been so excited about my brainchild that I contacted Lynn Phillip Hodgson, author of several books on the subject of Camp X, where my main character learned all the tricks of his trade.  It was the boldest thing I've ever done in my life, and I really didn't expect a response.  But Hodgson and his wife Marlene agreed to read the draft and provide comments.  (I'd purchased one of his books prior to contacting him, then proceeded to buy the rest once I'd met him in person.)

There were four major things I learned from Marlene and I'll be forever indebted.

1)  Yes, the ballpoint pen existed in 1944, but my character couldn't have afforded one.  I'd already confirmed that several patents had been issued for ballpoint pens and mass production had begun well before 1944, so I was in the clear (and yay me for looking up information on the patents and manufacture).  So it was technically feasible that a particular character could carry one around in his upper jacket pocket.  But as my new best friend pointed out, in 1944, ball point pens were so bloody expensive that it was unlikely that the police detective would be able to afford one on his wages.  The Biro prototype, for example, cost about £27 in 1944 - which, by my rough estimate is about $500-$600 in today's bucks.  Feel free to correct my bad math, but the point is, ouch.  He would more likely have stuck to a pencil, or used a fountain pen at his desk.  Even if the police detective did buy one, or if he had received it as a gift, he certainly would not have been carrying it around with him as he interrogated dangerous criminals - like uh, professional thieves.  It was a little itty-bitty detail that I'd taken for granted; but it was enough that a savvy history buff called me on it.

2)  Large ships couldn't pass into Lake Ontario, because the St. Lawrence Seaway and all its myriad locks didn't open until 1959.  Construction didn't begin until 1954.  I had to go back and redesign an entire scene because ocean-going ships had no means of navigating as far as Lake Ontario.  In my world, they'd always been there; it had never occurred to me that there existed a time before the SLS.  I was able to change the cargo vessel to a coal ship, though, and I didn't have to delete the scene altogether.  Any savvy boater - or anyone who's old enough to remember the opening of the seaway - could have called me out on this detail.

"You bet I'm going back to sea!  I can't get into no stinkin' ha'bour at Morgan City!"

3)  The right to remain silent isn't as old or as ubiquitous as you think it is.  Imagine - you've got a guy facing off against four armed cops, and this guy hasn't got a tongue.  During the arrest, some flatfoot says, "You have the right to remain...oh..."  Gosh - what a great line, hey?  Yeah...as Marlene told me, Miranda Rights were introduced in the United States (not Canada) in 1966.  Anybody familiar with civil rights activism and the recent history of law would have picked up on this one; and in this case, it wasn't just a detail that needed to be adjusted - I had to make an important decision:  save the line for artistic reasons, or ditch it in favour of historical accuracy.  I scrapped the line.  Three years later, I don't miss it.

No, seriously.  You can't make him talk.

4)  You can never do enough research.  That's both an exhortation and a get-out-of-jail-free card.

My advice:  write first, then research like mad to add more tasty details, or to amend your O.O.P.S. (Out-Of-Period Stuff).  Don't do it the other way around (*kaf kaf - Michael Lorenson! kaf*), or you'll splurge all your finite writing time by following the twisty, winding paths of Wikipedia.

Stay on target.  Writing questions, like "Could someone in Canada have listened to an American broadcast of The Shadow?" helps to direct the focus of your research, so that when you do go meandering down the halls of Wikipedia, you'll know where you were supposed to be going.  Be patient, be persistent, and have fun.  It's amazing what you'll learn when you start researching - and what you'll learn might be handy at impromptu trivia shows.

Reach out to other history buffs!  Ask them questions about the time period in which they are experts.  Read forums, post questions.  Visit museums and libraries.  Old fashion magazines, by the way, are pretty useless; they'll tell you what people considered high fashion, but they won't tell you about what people actual wore.  Compare today's runway models against people in the mall; ain't the same fashion, now is it?  Photo archives, family albums, those are far better.

When you look at pictures from your time period (if they exist), always look at the background.  What do the cars look like (if they exist)?  Do the streets have curbs?  What kind of shoes are they wearing?  What does the architecture look like, and is it still in that same place today?  What advertisements do you see in the background?  Absorb these details by osmosis, and when applicable (more on this in part two of the mini-series), insert the details into your story.  These tiny brushstrokes give the reader an uncanny sense that you've recently been in that place and that time.

But no matter how much research you do, there is always going to be somebody more knowledgeable than you, and chances are, they'll find a way and a time to prove it to you - and they might not be as nice about it as my first readers have been.  There is a point at which you need to shrug, thank your reader, and remember not to make the same error in the sequel.  There is always a point at which you have to admit that you've done enough research - maybe not all, that would be impossible - and then send the story off.

My encounter with Marlene's Red Pen of Death taught me some skills necessary for writing historical fiction well.  But that's for part two of this mini-series on historical fiction.  Stayed tuned this weekend for more neat stuff you didn't know you should know.

For now, I recommend you check out Hodgson's books.  Camp X is, in my personal opinion, a much overlooked but fascinating piece of Canadian history.  We trained spies, for goodness sake, in Oshawa!  American spies, British spies, spies from all over Europe.  We were training secret agents before the CIA even came into existence - even before its predecessor the OSS was formed!  Us, Canadians!  Granted, we don't have a lot of fascinating history to begin with, but this history is incredibly cool.

And Hodgson's cool too.  He's hosting a tour of the Camp X site on the Oshawa/Whitby border on the weekend of September 24th/25th - so get out there, if you can! Awesome trip for the kids, too.  It's the only time they can stand in a crater made by a spy-in-training who had too much time - and too much dynamite - on their hands.

And buy his books.  All of them.  Seriously.  Buy them like they're collector's items in the making.  Buy two copies of each - one to keep pristine on your bookshelves, the other to underline, dog-ear and highlight.  Buy extra copies for your friends.  Buy them for friends of your friends.

'Cause if you don't...Well, we have ways of finding you.  *suspicious squint*

Oh, and if you're interested in the '30s, '40s and '50s don't forget to check out my other blog:  Theatre of the Mind, at goldenmicrophone.blogspot.com.  Film, radio and fun facts about actors you didn't know you knew!